Friday, August 14, 2015

"The Mighty Wurlitzer: How the CIA Played America" (Nancy Hanover, WSWS):In a highly relevant section of “The Mighty Wurlitzer” Wilford
explains how professors, particularly from the elite Ivy League
colleges, acted as conduits for the Agency. The author focuses on the
CIA work of William Y. Elliott of Harvard, a 41-year veteran of the
university’s Government Department and dean of the famous Harvard Summer
School.Elliott was active in “plugging in” specific students into CIA
operations. He utilized the prestigious Summer School to expand the
Agency’s international recruitment pool. Among the Harvard graduate
students individually “mentored” by Elliott was Henry Kissinger, who
played a prominent role in the summer program and used it to launch his
government career.

In his conclusion, the author emphasizes that such university
operations are clearly not over, but are increasing. He references the
Church Committee’s [6] findings of the Agency’s “operational use” of
individual academics, including “providing leads and making
introductions for intelligence purposes, collaboration in research and
analysis, intelligence collection abroad, and preparation of books and
other propaganda materials.”

The CIA does actively attempt to recruit and does so via 'high profile' professors.

I know that because I saw it with my own eyes.

To give but one example, when Rebecca, C.I. and I were in college, they tried to recruit C.I.

A still well known professor had C.I. meet someone for lunch.

She thought this was something academic.

It was not.

It was an attempt to recruit her for the CIA.

The CIA has various ways of identifying and targeting.

For C.I., they wanted her for analysis.

She popped up on their radar because of tests that the professor was administering which really were not about academics but about profiling possible CIA employees.

What the tests identified on C.I. was her enormous analytical abilities.

She had a fit, rightly, over this effort to recruit her for the CIA (especially offensive back in the day) and she confronted the professor (I was present) and he immediately started trying to get her not to out him and explaining what had been done.

So he was putting together tests to test her abilities after previous tests had identified her abilities. She was able to synthesize cross disciplines and he also tested for implications and not just observations based on facts.

A number of students took jobs -- temporary and longterm.

I found the whole thing to be obstructive to true academia and the honest exchange of ideas.

Thursday, August 13, 2015. Chaos and violence continue, Haider al-Abadi
is in a tizzy over remarks by US General Ray Odierno, Haider's military
bombed a maternity hospital killing dozens including infants, media
criticism is not partisan whoring, Hillary Clinton's bloodlust appears
to be never ending, and much more.

Haider al-Abadi can't stop shooting his stupid mouth off.

He's always declaring war on someone -- mainly logic and intelligence
are the targets whenever Haider opens that stupid mouth of his.

Reuters notes Abadi's "media office said it was surprised at the
comments attributed to Odierno, which it considered 'irresponsible and
reflecting ignorance of the Iraqi situation'."

There was nothing irresponsible or ignorant about Odierno's remarks.

There was something grossly irresponsible about someone threatening to
kill Americans over what Congress might do and the person making those
threats publicly was a member of Haider's cabinet and yet the grossly
obese Haider had no comment on that. (See May 4th's "Barzani visits the US and did the Badr militia just threaten the US?" about the remarks of the Transport Minister Hadi al-Amiri.)

Public threats of violence made by a member of his Cabinet and Haider didn't open his yap for one second.

Here's the actual exchange that has Haider soiling his underwear and screaming his head off.

[Q:] General, given your experience in Iraq, and you talked earlier about the growing conflict between Shia and Sunni, and the
increased influence now of Iran inside Iraq, even militarily, do you see
any possibility that there can be any reconciliation in Iraq between
the Sunni and Shia?
GEN. ODIERNO: I think it's becoming more difficult by the day. And I
think there might be some alternative solutions that might have to come
into this sometime in the future, where Iraq might not look like it did
in the past. But we have to wait and see how that plays out.
I think we have to deal with ISIL first, and then we have to decide what it will look like afterwards.
Q: Are you talking about the possibility of partitioning? GEN. ODIERNO: Well, I mean, I think that is for the region and
politicians to kind of figure out, diplomats to figure out how we want
to work this, but that is something that could happen. It might be the
only solution, but I'm not ready to say that yet.

He was asked his opinion and he answered.

And now Haider wants to whine like the little bitch that he is.

Haider doesn't want to stop bombing civilians in Falluja.

The fat ass liar pretended he did on September 13, 2014 when he opened
his big mouth and announced that those bombings were wrong (they are
wrong, they're War Crimes) and that he had ordered the Iraqi military to
stop the bombings.

And how the press rushed to prop the puppet up.

But 24 hours later it was September 14, 2014 and the bombings continued.

Continued, never stopped.

Continue to this day.

And honestly, is the US government unable to find one thin Iraqi politician to put in power?

What is this obsession with one grossly obese figure after another being put in power?

Maybe the White House needs to start shipping treadmills to Iraq?

And if Florida's Cabana Bay Beach Resort hotel can open a Jack LaLanne
fitness center, maybe it's time to open one in the Green Zone as well?

If I were one of the millions of struggling Iraqis, I don't think I'd be
looking at the likes of never-miss-a-meal Haider or Jalal Talabani or
Nouri al-Maliki or . . . favorably.

Odierno did not bring up the topic, he was asked about it and he offered an opinion.

In that opinion, he did not call for Iraq to be partitioned and noted
that if the day came for that it would be a decision for the region.

The US is not in the region.

Does Haider not get that?

I get that some outlets -- such as Iraq Times
-- went with screaming headlines proclaiming that Odierno had just
called for Iraq to be partitioned. But even those outlets in their
actual reports went beyond the hysterical headlines.

Of course, Haider al-Abadi is a fake ass and his latest public tantrum
is a distraction -- one that Reuters plays along with -- which allows
the press to avoid addressing what took place in Falluja today.

These bombings by the Iraqi military that began in January 2014 and target the civilians are War Crimes. Kitabat reports
that today 70 civilians were wounded or killed by the warplane bombings
which targeted a maternity hospital in western Falluja -- at least 23
children were killed. Dr. Fadel Ahmed states that premature infants in
incubators were "charred beyond recognition."

B-b-b-ut I don't read Arabic! I have to take your word for it.

Russia Today notes:Iraq’s Air Force has bombed a maternity hospital in Fallujah, located
west of Baghdad in Al Anbar province. Over 20 people died in the blast,
including women, children and medical personnel, according to local
media. Another 30 were injured. “Iraqi army planes dropped three
barrel bombs on the city’s maternity hospital, killing 31 people,
including 23 women and children, and injuring 39 others,” al-Araby quoted Dr. Fadil Ahmad from the hospital as saying. “Some
of the bodies are so badly burnt it is difficult to identify them,
especially the babies. The maternity hospital is far from the fighting
and it’s an old building and known by everyone.”

When I hear American idiots and asses rush to prop up this politician
they drool over or that one they want to finger them, I think their
hypocrisy is revealed by their inability, after 20 months and counting,
to speak out against the bombings of civilians in Falluja.

They can't be bothered.

They can jerk off in public to everything else.

They can waste our time on their erotic fantasies of Jeb Bush or Hillary
Clinton (or Barack Obama or Bully Boy Bush), they just can't move
beyond faux outrage to real outrage over the killing of innocent
civilians by the Iraqi military which is intentionally targeting the
Sunni civilians.

So spare me all your pretense that you are an ethical or caring person
because you're just another whore in the main room of a bordello looking
to turn tricks for the night.

SHANE AND SCHMIDT (8/9/15): Mrs. Clinton, who has said
she now regrets her unorthodox decision to keep private control of her
official messages, is not a target in the F.B.I.’s investigation, which
is focused on assessing security breaches. Against the backdrop of other
current government computer security lapses, notably the large-scale
theft of files from the Office of Personnel Management, most
specialists believe the occasional appearance of classified information
in the Clinton account was probably of marginal consequence.

Say what? Most specialists believe the matter is probably of marginal consequence?

------------------------------------

This thrills Bob.

He's thrilled. He's happy.

Let's be clear what has him thrilled and happy: The newspaper just made a
claim it does not back up and uses unnamed and unidentified sources
("most specialists").

So in other words, unnamed sources are allowed to speculate and the paper presents it as fact.

And Bob's thrilled.

But, at the end of last month, when the newspaper did the same thing but
what got repeated wasn't pro-Hillary, Bob had a hissy fit.

How do you reconcile the two?

You don't.

He's not a media critic.

He hates unnamed sources when they don't back his beloved but when they
do back his beloved Bob's jerking off and moaning in public.

One reason nothing changes for the better in terms of American media is because of this whoring.

When Bob puts his Clinton crack pipe down and is actually
semi-functional, there's nothing he does that hasn't already been done
by someone else -- and done better.

Take Nora Ephron.

The late film maker left journalism -- left media criticism -- specifically because of this crap.

Daniel Schorr was a damn liar.

But the left wanted to build him up into a hero.

He had a Congressional report, as a CBS News employee, entitled The Pike
Report. The Congressional committee decided not to release it.

He took it to The Village Voice which published it.

No problem there and you could even hale him as a whistle-blower.

Except the story didn't end there.

CBS News wanted to know who leaked it.

Schorr could have remained silent and that would have been fine.

What was not fine was for him to lie that Lesley Stahl was the one who
gave the report to The Village Voice, to use as 'proof' that she was
dating Village Voice reporter Aaron Latham (he and Lesley have been
married since 1977, at the time they were not married).

The person responsible was going to be fired.

Daniel Schorr knew that.

And he deliberately lied.

His not confessing it was him?

Fine.

Stay silent.

But when you lie to cover your own ass?

That's not a whistle-blower and his actions were outrageous.

Nora wrote about them in the essay "Daniel Schorr."

She was then the media critic for Esquire magazine -- which paid her to be provocative and initiate debate.

But Esquire refused to run that column and she had to take it to More
magazine to get it published (that was a 70s journalism review magazine
and not the Cosmo wanna be that's published today under that same
title).

Nora named names and the press acted as though she didn't.

Not only did Esquire refuse to print it, but as Ava and I noted in April 2014, the 557 paged The Most of Nora Ephron (published after her death) refused to include the June 1976 essay.

This despite the fact that it was something Nora was very proud of.

It led her to leave media criticism -- the reaction to this essay -- and
turn to screen writing and directing, so she saw it as important for
that reason. But she was also glad, in the face of all the
how-could-yous, that she had the courage to write the piece in the first
place.

And she should have been proud -- it's a strongly written piece, it's a truth telling piece.

It did more than Bob Somerby could accomplish in 20 years.

You may be aware that he's always whining that the press won't name each other's names.

But when one does name, he ignores it.

He is completely ignorant of Nora Ephron's career as a media critic or why it ended.

But he wants to drone on endlessly about his college roommate Al Gore and pretend like that makes him a media critic.

He's just a partisan whore.

And he's far from alone.

I thought, for example, we were seeing something important in the Bully
Boy Bush years as there was a revival of interest in the work of the
late I.F. Stone.

But, you'll notice, we on the left lost interest in the truth teller once Barack Obama was sworn in as president.

When a Republican's in the White House, Pacifica Radio and The Nation
feel the need to 'educate' the country (indoctrinate?) about how an I.F.
Stone stood up to government, said not to trust any politician (not
just don't trust Republicans) and how his work mattered.

But when Barack -- whom they rush to cover and excuse -- is in the White
House, they're not so eager to 'educate' their listeners and readers
about the importance of speaking out.

In "Oh, Obama," Elaine noted Glenn Greenwald's latest:As everyone knows, “closing Guantánamo” was a centerpiece of the 2008
Obama campaign. In the Senate and then in the presidential campaign,
Obama repeatedly and eloquently railed against the core, defining evil of Guantánamo: indefinite detention.On the Senate floor, Obama passionately intoned in 2006:
“As a parent, I can also imagine the terror I would feel if one of my
family members were rounded up in the middle of the night and sent to
Guantánamo without even getting one chance to ask why they were being held and being able to prove their innocence.” During the 2008 campaign, he repeatedly denounced “the Bush Administration’s attempt to create a legal black hole at Guantánamo.”In the seventh year of Obama’s presidency, Guantánamo notoriously
remains open, leaving one of his central vows unfulfilled. That, in
turn, means that Democratic partisans have to scrounge around for
excuses to justify this failure, to cast blame on someone other than the
president, lest his legacy be besmirched. They long ago settled on the
claim that blame (as always) lies not with Obama but with Congressional
Republicans, who imposed a series of legal restrictions that impeded the
camp’s closing.

Bob Somerby and Kevin Drum planning on writing those truths?

Of course not.

Truth doesn't matter to partisan whores.

For a prostitute like Somerby or Drum, words are things you twist and use against your enemy.

Jeb Bush attacked Hillary for the current crises in Iraq maintaining she
had responsibility for them due to having been US Secretary of State
from 2009 to 2014 -- to be clear, Jeb was not blaming her for her 2002
vote backing war on Iraq.

That's not all we went over because, honestly, the 'news' that a Bush
says something stupid really isn't news at this late date. It's
expected, to be sure. It's common place. But it's not breaking news
that's going to shock the world.

But Mother Jones based their only report on the exchange or 'battle' on how stupid Jeb was.

I'm not debating or questioning Jeb's stupidity.

But the news factor in the 'battle' was Hillary dispatching Jake
Sullivan to speak for her and Sullivan declaring not that Hillary
believed her 2002 vote was a mistake but that the problem with the Iraq
War was that Bully Boy Bush did not send enough troops in.

This claim was made despite the fact that as Senator Hillary Clinton,
she opposed Bully Boy Bush's 2007 'surge' (sending more US troops into
Iraq).

Hillary's position has changed repeatedly and twists and turns and coils against itself.

There is no consistency, there is no logic and she's looking more and
more like a politician who will say anything to be elected and never
sticks to her word.

That was the big story of the 'battle.'

But partisan whores didn't want to tell their readers, listeners, et al
that
Vote-for-me-Hillary-because-I-realize-finally-that-my-2002-vote-was-a-mistake
was now insisting that the real problem was not the war and the lies
told about it but instead the real problem was now that Bully Boy Bush
didn't send enough US troops in.

How many exactly did or does Hillary want to have died in Iraq?

What number of kills will satisfy her blood lust?

Those were questions to ask.

Especially after Leo Shane III (Military Times) reported last week,
"About 3,500 U.S. troops are stationed in Iraq, and seven have lost
their lives in connection to the new military operations there."

How many more deaths does the Vampire Clinton need to feed on before she's satisfied her blood lust?

The media will never get better in this country because too many
supposed media critics are nothing but partisan whores who only call out
the media to advance their special gal or fella.

None of that whoring has ever helped Iraq and it never will.

Maybe sometime after January 2017, when Barack is finally and thankfully
out of the White House, we can discuss how President ____ [whomever] is
backing an Iraqi prime minister whose army is bombing civilians?

Maybe we can discuss how international treaties the US government has
signed on to and how US law (including but not limited the Leahy
Amendment) requires that the US government immediately stop supplying
the government of Iraq with weapons and military aid as a result of
these weapons being used to attack Iraqi civilians?

Thursday, August 13, 2015

Glenn Greenwald's latest opens:As everyone knows, “closing Guantánamo” was a centerpiece of the 2008
Obama campaign. In the Senate and then in the presidential campaign,
Obama repeatedly and eloquently railed against the core, defining evil of Guantánamo: indefinite detention.On the Senate floor, Obama passionately intoned in 2006:
“As a parent, I can also imagine the terror I would feel if one of my
family members were rounded up in the middle of the night and sent to
Guantánamo without even getting one chance to ask why they were being held and being able to prove their innocence.” During the 2008 campaign, he repeatedly denounced “the Bush Administration’s attempt to create a legal black hole at Guantánamo.”

In the seventh year of Obama’s presidency, Guantánamo notoriously
remains open, leaving one of his central vows unfulfilled. That, in
turn, means that Democratic partisans have to scrounge around for
excuses to justify this failure, to cast blame on someone other than the
president, lest his legacy be besmirched. They long ago settled on the
claim that blame (as always) lies not with Obama but with Congressional
Republicans, who imposed a series of legal restrictions that impeded the
camp’s closing.

Wednesday, August 12, 2015. Chaos and violence continue, US Gen Ray
Odierno talks about more US troops being sent into Iraq, Haider
al-Abadi's reforms or 'reforms' continue to be greeted with giddy hype
as opposed to actual analysis, and much more.

Gen Ray Odierno is the Army Chief of Staff. He was also the top US
commander in Iraq from September 2008 through September 2010. He
retires as the Army Chief of Staff at the end of the week. He held a
press conference today and Barbara Starr and Jim Sciutto (CNN) report:"If we find in the next several months that we aren't making progress,
we should absolutely consider embedding some soldiers (in Iraq)," Gen.
Raymond Odierno, outgoing Army chief of staff, said in response to a CNN
question about putting troops on the ground in Iraq and Syria at his
final press conference. He called it an "option we should present to the
President."

Odierno, the outgoing Army chief of
staff, backed the current strategy against Islamic State, telling his
last Pentagon news conference that while U.S. troops could defeat the
militants, they could not solve the broader political and economic
problems besetting Iraq and Syria."We
could probably go in there with a certain amount of American force and
... defeat ISIL. The problem is we would be right back where we are
today six months later," he told reporters, using an acronym for Islamic
State."For me it's about
changing the dynamics, the political dynamics, the economic dynamics,
and it has to be done by those in the region," he said.

If you're opposed to war -- or further war -- on Iraq (and I am), it's
really not enough to point out the failure of the bombing campaign.

You need to be underscoring that the political solution Barack claimed
was the only answer for Iraq's crises has not been worked, that there
has been no serious effort by the US government to aid and assist on
that.

You need to decry the use of the State Dept for a militarization
campaign and Secretary of State John Kerry's absurd war posturing.

You need to be demanding that all the US government's efforts stop being
focused on bombings and troops being sent into Iraq and instead that
some actual diplomatic work be done.

I like General Ray Odierno.

He wasn't David Petraeus.

Petraues and his groupies have a long history with this site where they
attempted first to curry favor, then to launch non-stop attacks.

This included Petraues himself -- a man whose devotion to his own ego brought him down.

Had he not been so concerned about shaping the way the world saw him, he
never would have passed classified documents to his mistress who was
also his court biographer.

Petraeus was a nightmare in Iraq for US troops due to his diva like ways.

The press looked the other way but we frequently didn't.

Which led to his attempts -- and the attempts of those serving under him
-- to take control of the way he was portrayed at this site.

It's really not pretty to me to see a grown adult acting like a starlet desperate for copy to advance her career.

But that was Petraeus.

When Odierno took control, the diva theatrics ended.

And that was noticed not just by those paying attention (he immediately
told the press it was just "Ray," not "Raymond") but also by those
serving immediately under him.

The same people who regularly lodged objections to me about Petraeus now
felt respected by Odierno and felt that the general in charge had a
purpose that went beyond shaping his own image for the world.

From near daily e-mail efforts by Petraeus and company, we saw only one
e-mail regarding the portrayal of Odierno here from anyone serving under
him (Odierno has never contacted this site himself).

My dictated e-mail in response to that noted that (a) Odierno was not
being raked over the coals the way Petraeus was because (b) I was not
hearing complaints of diva like behavior, (c) he had raised morale, (c)
he seemed more responsive to the press (whereas Petraeus was 'expansive'
to the press -- about himself) and that (d) Odierno's role and my role
(critic of the illegal war) would always be at odds but if he continued
to focus on the work and not his own ego he would not be receiving the
treatment Petraeus did here.

And Odierno then and to now has done that.

I completely disagree with him on US troops in Iraq.

I understand why he's saying it.

I understand he's sincere on it.

He may eve be right about it.

I don't know.

I'm not stupid enough to pretend I know everything.

Nor am I stupid enough to accuse everyone I disagree with of being
either 'for us or against us' or 'wrong on this like they were wrong on
that.'

Odierno may very well be right that US troops need to be on the ground
in Iraq in large numbers in the near future to turn the tide in Iraq.

I don't agree.

And I think before that's even considered, there need to be demands made on the US government assisting with diplomacy first.

(And, please note, Odierno's call for US troops comes with the acknowledgment that US troops alone will not work.)

It's really sad that we're back to considering sending even more US
troops into Iraq when the diplomatic effort has never been launched by
the White House despite Barack's own words on June 19, 2014.

The violence continues in Iraq as RT notes, "A powerful truck bomb blast has reportedly killed dozens of people and
injured about 200 in Baghdad, reports say. The blast hit the
Shia-dominated Sadr-City district of the Iraqi capital.
" The truck is said to be a "refrigerated truck packed with explosives." AP counts 58 dead with over sixty more people left injured.

He did manage to use these protests to destroy any real opposition to him or anyone else in the post of prime minister.

He initiated a series of changes that did away with quotas which means
no real minority voice in Iraq and certainly no power-sharing agreement.

He did away with the checks and balances on his own position.

He did so with no objection.

Yesterday, UNAMI joined the praise circle as they rushed to announce their pleasure with Iraqi Prime Minister
Haider al-Abadi's proposed reforms or 'reforms.' They did so via a
statement from Deputy Special Envoy Gyorgy Busztin.
Since Jan Kubis is the Special Representative to Iraq for United
Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, some on Arabic social media are
wondering why Busztin made the announcement and where Kubis is? Today
is International Youth Day and, in Iraq, Busztin also delivered a speech
for that occasion.

Along with wondering where Kubis is, Arabic social media is abuzz with
questions over Haider's reforms or 'reforms' -- and with good reason.

No one knows what is taking place but everyone's treating the proposals as a good thing.

The US Congress has been repeatedly told this year that Haider was
giving more power to local areas and how important this was and how it
demonstrated that he was not another Nouri al-Maliki but someone who
wanted to share power. Despite this repeated claim, Al Mada notes the reforms or 'reforms' will give Haider the power to fire the local heads of government.

This is a power the prime minister has not had previously.

In addition, Alsumaria reports that he's now declaring he next plans to alter Iraq's Constitution.

While we cautioned here and noted that the political system was going to
immediately change to one in which the prime minister was basically a
president with sole control of everything, Brookings gushed and issued
p.r. copy.

More and more, it's looking like the protests and the protesters were
used by Haider and others to push through changes in the political
system that do create a more responsive and accountable government.

At the end of July thousands of locals took to the streets of Baghdad
to protest against the lack of state services – and especially the
breakdown in electricity supply, which was making their lives very
difficult in summer temperatures over 50 degrees Celsius. Most of the
organisers of these demonstrations were civil society activists and
other prominent local personalities and their aims were clearly stated.
They wanted the Ministry of Electricity reformed and an end to
corruption there.

The demonstrations took place peacefully
and there were no clashes with police or military on site; these forces
actually distributed water bottles to the demonstrators.

Two days after the first demonstrations,
Qais al-Khazali, head of the League of the Righteous militia group,
appeared on television proclaiming his support of the demonstrators. The
League of the Righteous is one of a dozen or so unofficial armed
groups, made up mostly of local Shiite Muslims, that have played an
essential role in fighting against the extremist Islamic State group in
Iraq. However the League of the Righteous is also known as one of the
more extreme of these groups. And most recently the militia has also
become known for its support of, and patronage from, former Iraqi Prime
Minister, Nouri al-Maliki.

On television, al-Khazali announced the
creation of civilian units associated with the Shiite Muslim militias.
“The demonstrators should set firm goals,” al-Khazali said, “because the
problems in Iraq are not only about the Ministry of Electricity. The
problems are part of the whole political system.”

Once again al-Khazali then recommended that Iraq's political system be changed
from a parliamentary one to a presidential one. This would in effect
give al-Maliki, one of the League of the Righteous' sponsors, more power
again; al-Maliki tried to hang onto power after the last elections but
was denied by other Iraqi politicians and he has been seen as trying to
undermine his successor, current Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi, ever
since.

Some of the civil society activists who had
first organised the popular protests in Baghdad were upset at
al-Khazali's statements. They felt he was trying to hijack the protests
to push his own agenda and as a result, some said they would boycott the
next lot of protests.

Three days before the second demonstration,
which was to take place on August 7, supporters of the League of
Righteous in Baghdad began to prepare to take part in the protests.

“A formal letter from the League’s head
office was sent to all of our offices,” Karim al-Lami, one of the
militia's members based in the Sadr City neighbourhood in Baghdad, told
NIQASH by phone. “The letters emphasised the importance of all members
and employees participating. Additionally, al-Lami explains, the letter
said that militia members shouldn't carry banners or clothing or badges
that indicated they were militia members. “They should only use
anti-government and anti-Parliament slogans and condemn the poor
services,” al-Lami says.

A Shi'ite dominant government led by a Shi'ite prime minister spent the
last days eliminating the roles of minorities in the government -- roles
the Constitution guaranteed.

The president of Iraq, a Kurd, objected and said what was taking place was unconstitutional.

The problem is that there’s no plan to substitute some new guarantor
of national cohesion or at least something less than civil war. With
Sunni Arabs largely out of the political picture in Baghdad, and the
Kurds satisfied for the moment with their de facto autonomy and gradual
expansion, there’s no one to tell the Shiite majority that it better
find some way to bring the country together again.One possibility
is that, at this point, the Shiites just don’t care. The area
controlled by Islamic State doesn’t have significant oil reserves. For
the moment, the militant group isn’t immediately threatening Baghdad.
From the Shiite perspective, the status quo perhaps doesn’t look so bad.
A Shiite statelet in the rump of the former Iraq would include Baghdad
as well as the Persian Gulf refineries and ports.But if Abadi is
thinking that he doesn’t need to give Iraqi Sunnis any incentive to take
part in a unified Iraq, he’s making a big mistake. Islamic State won’t
be satisfied in the long run with a desert enclave. It’ll eventually
make a play for Baghdad, with its significant Sunni population. If
Baghdad’s Sunnis see no future in a Shiite Iraq, they’ll side with
Islamic State when that day comes. That could turn Baghdad into Beirut
circa 1975.

What happens now that Haider has what Nouri always wanted?

The representation is no longer what it was. Minority rights are no longer guaranteed.

Haider is firing people that he really doesn't have the legal right to fire.

Wednesday, August 12, 2015

"Media: If it will kill off Amy Goodman, let Pacifica die" (Ava and C.I., The Third Estate Sunday Review):And she who criticizes Fox News for who they put on the air as a GOP
candidate is the same lying bitch who pimps Jill Stein as the Green
Party's 2016 presidential candidate when the primary hasn't been held
and Jill is far from the only candidate.

Someone who goes through the Columbia Records and Tapes catalogue picking out albums to order?

We're aware, aren't we, that outside of music, all KPFT can really claim
is a once a week LGBT show. In fairness, Queer Voices is one of the
best LGBT programs airing over the airwaves in the United States.

But what else does program director Ernesto offer?

A lot of syndicated programs that can be heard elsewhere including online.

That's the real story of Pacifica Radio.

Amen.

It really is past time for Pacifica to either break with Amy Goodman (who's bleeding them dry) or to go under.

Tuesday, August 11, 2015. Chaos and violence continue, Haider
al-Abadi's reforms pass, no one's quite sure what that means, Jeb Bush
blames Hillary for Iraq's crises, Hillary 'responds' by letting a man
speak for her, Hillary leaves behind her
my-vote-for-the-Iraq-War-was-a-mistake to now argue that there Bully Boy
Bush sent too few troops into Iraq, and much more.

Hillary Clinton is a feminist.

Doesn't mean she's a good one.

What she's doing right now on Iraq isn't feminism.

Jeb Bush, former Florida governor and contender for the GOP's 2016
presidential nomination, has slammed her for the state of Iraq today. Ben Kamisar (The Hill) reports:

Sullivan accused the administration of George W. Bush, Jeb’s
brother, of sending in too few troops, pushing out Sunnis that later
became radicalized and adding to Iranian influence within the Iraqi
government.

He added that Bush, not President Obama, set the withdrawal date for U.S. forces in Iraq.

So the little princess Hillary not only can't speak for herself but,
out of all her advisors, goes with a man, Jake Sullivan, to defend her?

That's not feminism.

Jeb Bush made a charge. If Hillary's suddenly 'too delicate' to deal
with it, well then hand the nation the vapors and let's all clutch the
pearls together.

Let's deal with Jake Sullivan, noted liar.

Bully Boy Bush did not set the withdrawal date.

This is a lie repeated by the stupid both in real time and ever since.

The US invasion was not authorized by any legal body. The United Nations did authorize the occupation that followed.

The United Nations did it on a yearly mandate.

The yearly mandate was getting Nouri al-Maliki in trouble. At the end
of 2006, he had extended it without input from the Iraqi Parliament and
they were outraged. He insisted that, the next year, he would get their
approval first. But 2007 was drawing down and he again didn't get
their approval further outraging the Parliament.

This is why, when the UN was refusing to continue providing cover for
the occupation (the British government was in the same boat as the US
government and had to enter into agreements directly with the Iraqi
government to continue the occupation), Bully Boy Bush went with a three
year agreement and not a one year agreement. It would go through once
and could cover three years. This would help Nouri al-Maliki avoid
having to ask every year for permission from the Parliament (or having
to face outrage if he again ignored them).

The three year agreement, the Status Of Forces Agreement, did not mean
that at the end of three years no more agreements could be made.

That's the talk of the stupid and the lying whores.

Barack Obama never believed that nonsense which is why he attempted to
extend the US military presence in Iraq beyond the end of 2011.

Nouri wasn't opposed to that.

Nouri, and a few other Iraqi politicians, opposed the grief they would get if it was only for three thousand or so troops.

Nouri wanted the US military presence. He feared the Iraqi military (he
sacked most of the commanders out of constant fear that they would
stage a coup against him).

The US military is how he remained in power.

Without them, he would have been toppled. That's true as early as the summer of 2006 when the Green Zone was almost breached.

Nouri nixed a small number of troops. He wanted at least 8,000 US
troops by most Congressional testimony and would have preferred 15,000.

If you don't know that at this late date and you're yammering on, you're a stupid, little liar.

If you don't know that Barack thought the December drawdown (the
military never called it a "withdrawal" for obvious reasons) was not the
'end of story,' you didn't pay attention very well, did you?

You missed then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta telling the Senate
that negotiations continued and that they hoped to have something in the
new year (January 2012).

I can't believe we're having to take the blowhard seriously enough to fact check his lying ass.

As for two more charges Sullivan made above.

Did Bully Boy Bush push Iraq into the arms of Iran?

Possibly.

It's a complicated conversation but, overall, we can say "yes."

We can also note that Bully Boy Bush did not make deals with
Iranian-backed terrorists groups in Iraq. It wasn't Bully Boy Bush in
2009 who released terrorist leaders in US captivity for the deaths of 5
American troops.

Okay, so since around 2007, she's been offering weak ass statements
about her 2002 vote approving the Iraq War was a "mistake" and
indicating she regretted it but now her campaign is arguing that the
mistake was sending too little US troops into Iraq.

And yet when Bully Boy Bush tried to 'surge' in 2007, she publicly opposed increasing the number of US troops in Iraq.

Is there any position that she won't take, any lie that she won't tell?

We need to stress one more time that good feminism is not hiding behind a man.

If Jeb Bush makes a charge against Hillary, she needs to be able to respond.

Herself.

Throughout Tuesday morning, it was said Hillary would be responding in the afternoon.

Apparently not.

Apparently, she's too much of a delicate flower to respond.

Who knew that the woman who snarled "What difference, at this point, does it make?" was such a fragile little orchid?

When the Iraqi Parliament and the President of Iraq (Jalal Talabani) and
Nouri agreed to begin negotiations for US troops to remain in Iraq
beyond 2011, we noted in the August 3, 2011 snapshot:

James Jeffrey, the US Ambassador to Iraq, is the public face of
negotiations (as Ryan Crocker was when he was the US Ambassador to
Iraq). He is assisted by State Dept employees the administration has
tasked for this issue.

This is not who Hillary
Clinton has selected, it's not her issue. Joe Biden and Samantha Power
are tasked with Iraq on the orders of Barack Obama. Hillary is not
involved. You see her with her Iraqi counterpart from time to time, she
does receive most visiting Iraqis but she and Nouri are not close and
anyone who can't grasp that can't remember Hillary's public remarks
about Nouri when she was in the Senate. That's the practical reason
Hillary's not over Iraq. There are other reasons as well. Samantha
Power is elevated to her position because, although Joe Biden has a
great relationship with many Iraqi politicians (including the Kurds), he
also made comments, when he was a senator, about Nouri that Nouri has
not forgotten. (Hillary and Joe both rightly called Nouri a despot at
one point or another and it's not forgotten on Nouri's side. And they
were not one time remarks. Nor were they unique remarks in the
Senate. Back then, Baraba Boxer was among the many calling out Nouri as
a Little Saddam.)

If you check the archives, you will find us repeatedly noting while Hillary was Secretary of State that she was not over Iraq.

We also repeatedly noted that she tended to fudge that fact and needed to get honest or would be left holding the bag on Iraq.

Holding the bag on Iraq?

2010, Barack Obama determined the fate of Iraq by nullifying the votes
and will of the Iraqi people to insist that Nouri get a second term
after he lost the election.

That set Iraq on its current course.

The idiot Jake Sullivan wants to blame Bully Boy Bush for the rise of the Islamic State.

Nouri al-Maliki is to blame for that as he used his second to persecute
Sunnis and the Islamic State (in Iraq) is a response to that
persecution. (In Syria, it's also seen as a response to the persecution
of the Sunnis by the Syrian government.)

Hillary's involvement in that was minor.

If she voiced an opinion, it most likely wasn't an honest one.

She'd publicly called Nouri a "thug" in 2008 -- we can spoonfeed you the
hearing, we covered it in real time while Spencer Ackerman -- whoring
for Barack -- 'missed' Hillary's testimony in his coverage of the same
hearing.

She knew what Nouri was and it's doubtful she argued for him to have a second term.

Samantha Power made the case that Nouri would do as they wanted (the
White House) with regards to a new SOFA and Chris Hill argued that Iraq
needed a strong man and not democracy (Hill was the idiot Barack
appointed as US Ambassador to Iraq).

Vice President Joe Biden was the point-person on Iraq and he backed Hill and Power.

Hillary's only significant involvement in this issue comes when, after
the election of 2010 and in the midst of the political stalemate, she
joins with Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to vouch for the then-top
US commander in Iraq, Gen Ray Odierno.

Hill had thrown a tantrum and had Odierno shut out of the process.

Hillary joined with Gates to argue to Barack that Odierno was not the
problem and that he needed to be listened to. Once this was put in
motion, Barack would ask Hill for his resignation. Hill did not choose
to step down as US Ambassador to Iraq, he was asked to step down.

There are State Dept issues that Hillary was over in terms of Iraq.

These were budgetary issues, largely.

But in terms of policy, Hillary had no say and was not part of it.

It's a shame she refused to be honest in real time and preferred to be a glory hog.

It would be karmic to allow her to now take the blame for Iraq but, in
all honesty, she was not leading policy or even one of the chief policy
advisors on Iraq.

Iraq was noted at today's US State Dept press briefing moderated by Mark Toner.

QUESTION: Iraq’s parliament approved Prime Minister Abadi’s
wide-ranging reforms. How much did the United States know about these
reforms, and are there any sort of redlines, because there seems to be
some concern that if the reforms go too far they could alienate the
Sunnis and the political process? If you could comment on that.MR TONER: Well, first in terms of the
reforms, we certainly applaud the unity that was shown by Iraqi leaders
from across the political spectrum in moving forward on Prime Minister’s
Abadi’s proposals, which, as you know, were aimed at streamlining the
government and addressing corruption. And we’d note that these measures
were unanimously approved by the Council of Ministries – Ministers,
rather, earlier today.So we certainly commend Prime Minister Abadi’s initiative to promote
improved transparency and government services, and this is certainly
something he pledged when he came into power to govern more inclusively.
So we certainly believe that he’s doing so through these measures that
were adopted, and expect he’ll continue to do so.QUESTION: There were specific people in the list, including
former Prime Minister Maliki, who was removed. Do you share Mr. Abadi’s
concern or Mr. Abadi’s position that those people are corrupt people
that had to be removed?MR TONER: Well, first of all, I think the efforts were
designed, as I said, to streamline the government. Those are obviously –
this is an internal issue for the Iraqi Government. What we’re looking
at, the bigger picture, is – as I said, is his efforts to govern more
inclusively, and we think that these measures, as adopted, will do that.
But --QUESTION: So you don’t have any issue with those specific people who have been fired, basically, or removed from power?MR TONER: Again, I think I spoke to what we’re looking for
here – more inclusive governance, a more streamlined process, better
transparency. And certainly, as you mentioned, one of the goals is to
fight corruption, but I’m not going to speak to individuals. I’m just
going to say that as a matter of a broader concern to us – please, go
ahead, Elise.QUESTION: Can I move on to Syria?

MR TONER: Are we done with Iraq? Great.

"Are we done with Iraq? Great." That's pretty much the administration's approach to Iraq.

In Iraq today, the Parliament has approved Haider al-Abadi's 7-point plan to address waste and corruption. AFP reports all 297 MPs in attendance voted in favor of the proposal (there are 328 MPs in the Parliament).

The reforms or 'reforms' are thought to be in response to the recent
protests demanding accountability. Whether they are a true response or
just fakery attempting to stop the protests remains to be seen. BBC notes,
"Many Iraqis have cautiously welcomed the passing of the reform
package, seen as a victory for Mr Abadi. But he still faces pressure to
ensure the measures are properly implemented."

He said in a press conference today that he had submitted a memorandum
to the President and Prime Minister to implement a series of reforms,
including the formation of an international body to investigate the
hundreds of billions of dollars that have been spent since 2003.

He added that he called for the formation of this body to check in the
financial corruption and to bring the corruptors to justice and uncover
the details through the media.

Allawi called for reducing the personal protection of the officials and
send the redundant of protections team to fight the terrorists in the
battlefield.

Bas News reports that Iraq's President Fuad Masum is said to have told his vice presidents that "the reforms violate the Iraqi
constitution, and al-Abadi should have consulted the president."

Under the sweeping reforms, the three positions of
vice president and three deputy prime ministers will be scrapped,
removing offices that had become vehicles for patronage for some of the
most powerful people in the country.

Several ministries will be combined to eliminate
cabinet posts: the planning and finance ministries will be merged, water
will be combined with agriculture and the environment will be combined
with health.

Mr Abadi will be given the power to fire provincial
governors and regional officials, who often wield more power in their
territories than the central authorities.

Despite gushing from Brookings and others, no one really knows what -- if anything -- al-Abadi's plan will mean.In actual practice, Haider could have
just re-invented the political system in Iraq and removed checks and
balances built into the system.

Some
analysts say Mr Abadi’s move may be aimed less at reform than taking
advantage of Mr Sistani’s backing to bolster himself against political
opponents such as former prime minister Nouri al-Maliki.
The latter has publicly supported the reform plan but was widely
criticised during his rule for entrenching sectarian governance and
corruption.

U.S. Senator Tammy Baldwin Statement in response to VA Inspector General Reportonthe Death of Marine Corps Veteran Jason Simcakoski at the Tomah VA Medical Center

“Those responsible for this tragic failure should never again serve our veterans and their families.”

WASHINGTON,
D.C. – U.S. Senator Tammy Baldwin released the following statement
after the Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Inspector General
Office released a healthcare
inspections report regarding the death of Marine Corps veteran Jason
Simcakoski at the Tomah VA Medical Center on August 30, 2014:

“This
report confirms that the Tomah VA physicians entrusted with Jason's
care failed to keep their promise to a Wisconsin Marine and his family.
I have all the evidence
I need to conclude that the VA prescribed Jason a deadly mix of drugs
that led to his death and that those responsible for this tragic failure
should never again serve our veterans and their families. The sacred
trust we have with those who faithfully serve
our country has been broken and it needs to be fixed.

“I
have introduced bipartisan legislation in Jason’s name that has earned
the support of his family and a number of veteran service organizations
to provide the VA
with the tools it needs to help prevent this type of tragedy from
occurring to other veterans and their families. This report highlights
the need for the reforms we have proposed to give veterans and their
families a stronger voice in their care and put in
place stronger oversight and accountability for the quality of care we
are providing our veterans. Change is possible and I will continue my
fight for it.”